to get rid of the Religious and political Threads...
this is somethink usefull i hope,

"It's been promised for years, but it's just become a reality. Stem cells taken from cord blood have enabled a paralysed woman in South Korea to walk again for the first time in 20 years. The details are on the Sydney Morning Herald Site which requires registration, but can also be seen on the World Peace Herald. Too late for Christopher Reeve, but not for the thousands of new injuries worldwide each year or the millions of paralysed people from other diseases in the world."

Seoul: A South Korean woman paralysed for 20 years is walking again after scientists say they repaired her damaged spine using stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood.

Hwang Mi-soon, 37, had been bedridden since damaging her back in an accident. Last week she walked again with the help of a walking frame at a press conference where South Korea researchers announced the results of their stem cell therapy.

They said it was the world's first published case in which a patient with spinal cord injuries had been successfully treated with stem cells from umbilical cord blood.

Although they cautioned that more research was needed and verification from international experts was required, the South Korean researchers said Ms Hwang's case could signal a leap forward in the treatment of spinal cord injuries.

The use of stem cells from cord blood could also point to a way to sidestep the ethical dispute over the controversial use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research.

"We have glimpsed at a silver lining over the horizon," said Song Chang-hoon, a member of the research team and a professor at Chosun University's medical school in the south-western city of Kwangju. "We were all surprised at the fast improvements in the patient."

Under TV lights and flashing cameras, Ms Hwang stood up from her wheelchair and shuffled forward and back a few paces with the help of the frame.
"This is already a miracle for me," she said. "I never dreamed of getting to my feet again."

Research has shown stem cells can develop into replacement cells for damaged organs or body parts.

So-called "multipotent" stem cells - those found in cord blood - are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embryos.
However, these stem cells isolated from umbilical cord blood have emerged as an ethical and safe alternative to embryonic stem cells.

> Soon to be in Ka-lee-forn-ya!
>
Sorry Misfit, the technology already exists where they can extract your own stem cells, HSCs and MSCs, from pheripheral blood and regenerate the telomeres on the chromosomes without rendering them immortal. You don't want immortal cells in you body.

Once the HSCs and MSCs are extracted and regenerated they can be cultured in vitro to several billion and then reintroduced into your body intervenously. Back in your body, these stem cells will automatically migrate to the different parts of the body that need repair or replacement. Since they have been rejuvenated they are very effective at replacing about 200 different tissue types in your body. In effect, your age will no longer be a factor.

With using donor cord blood you run the risk of graft versus host desease (GVHD). Therefore, the number of stem cells that can be transplanted is limited. Secondly, using someone elses stem cells will in effect reprogram your genetic code with the donor's genetic code.

> What does that have to do with the recent passage of <a> href="http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/">Prop 71[/url]?
>
Ok Misfit. From the "Prop 71" web site, I have cut and pasted the following statement: (2 paragraphs)

"As widely reported in the news, recent medical research has revealed that human stem cells may provide breakthrough cures for many common
diseases and injuries. Stem cells are "unspecialized" cells that have the
ability to generate healthy new cells, tissues and organs. As a result, they have the potential to provide cures for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, ALS, osteoporosis, spinal cord injuries and many other devastating medical conditions.

Proposition 71, the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, is designed to turn the hope for those cures into reality, by using tax-free state bonds to fund stem cell research at California's medical research facilities."

The hope of turning these cures into reality already exists as explained in my last post. This has already been in existance for the last 2 years but has been buried and ignored by the medical establishment and drug companies. It cuts into their lucrative research grants and profits from drug sales. For example, the U.S. spends $100 billion a year on diabetes alone. Ouch!!!

So, instead of rying to reinvent the automobile why not just go down to the local dealership and buy one.

> So, instead of rying to reinvent the automobile why not just go down to the
> local dealership and buy one.
'Cuz we have something here called the FDA. Unfortunately without rigorous RND and testing it will never get approval here for widespread use. The Bush administration certainly will be of no help.

> > So, instead of rying to reinvent the automobile why not just go down to
> the
> > local dealership and buy one.
> 'Cuz we have something here called the FDA. Unfortunately without rigorous
> RND and testing it will never get approval here for widespread use. The Bush > administration certainly will be of no help.
>
> State must scramble to get stem cell agency off ground.
>
Misfit:
The use of the automobile as an analogy was some what of an over simplification of the issue. Glad to see that CA is getting serious in getting this technology to the public.

In regard to the FDA and equivalent agencies elsewhere, you some times have to wonder who's interests they really have at heart. But, that's a completely different subject.

As to the Bush administration and all those of the same persuasion, they can always refuse treatment.

On a personal level, I am not for embryonic and cord blood stem cell transplantation. This is not from a religious or moral point of view but from a scientific perspective. As stated in my initial post, “With the use of donor cord blood you run the risk of graft versus host disease (GVHD). Therefore, the number of stem cells that can be transplanted is limited. Secondly, using someone else’s stem cells will in effect reprogram your genetic code with the donor's genetic code”.

Using your own or another adult donor’s stem cells you know the genetic history. Whereas with embryonic and cord blood stem cells there is no genetic history. You may be lucky and receive the genetic code of a person that may live to 110 without a day sick or really luck out and inherit the genetic code of an accident of nature that is riddled with genetic defects.

Until they can screen the genetic code of embryonic and cord blood stem cells from A to Z, I will personally stay away from these types of stem cells.

The new cells won't "reprogram" your genetic code. It's no different than getting an already differentiated set of cells like a blood transfusion or a liver transplant.

A most extreme example of cells from two separate organisms are chimeras. Not the legendary critters, but people who are the result of two fertilized eggs. There has already been a few cases where someone has taken a genetic test and been misidentified, only to find when a sample of the SAME tissue as the comparison was taken a match was found. The cells from the two eggs combined while all cells were in the undifferentiated stage, so unlike siamese twins the cells only formed one organism.

> > Secondly, using someone else’s stem cells will in effect reprogram your
> > genetic code with the donor's genetic code”.
>
> The new cells won't "reprogram" your genetic code. It's no different than
> getting an already differentiated set of cells like a blood transfusion or a
> liver transplant.
>
> A most extreme example of cells from two separate organisms are chimeras. Not
> the legendary critters, but people who are the result of two fertilized eggs.
> There has already been a few cases where someone has taken a genetic test and
> been misidentified, only to find when a sample of the SAME tissue as the
> comparison was taken a match was found. The cells from the two eggs combined
> while all cells were in the undifferentiated stage, so unlike siamese twins
> the cells only formed one organism.
>
> DNA
> Tests Shed Light on 'Hybrid Humans'
>
> I just dread the day when they're using undifferentiated cells for breast or
> penis enlargement.

Murasaki you're right, I should choose my words more carefully. The donor stem cells will not replace the existing genetic code in your existing normal cells. However, once that cell dies and is replaced with a new cell by the donor stem cell the new replacement cell will have the donor’s genetic code.

This could give rise to a whole new gender of B movies. :)

Anthony, why take the risk when in most cases your very own stem cells, once they have been regenerated, can cure you. Only for certain genetic diseases would you require donor stem cells. Scientists are working on using the same technology used to regenerate your stem cells to replace defective genes. So, in the not to distance future we won’t need donor stem cells.

[Edit]
>
> The hope of turning these cures into reality already exists as explained in my
> last post. This has already been in existance for the last 2 years but has
> been buried and ignored by the medical establishment and drug companies. It
> cuts into their lucrative research grants and profits from drug sales. For
> example, the U.S. spends $100 billion a year on diabetes alone. Ouch!!!
>
> Franz
>
Hi Franz.
I'd like to know more about the "buried and ignored" part. I'm not necessarily a member of the "medical establishment," but I'm reasonably well informed. Some research does not make it through to publication in peer-reviewed and referreed journals due to flaws in design and myriad other problems. And the history of science is replete with important insights and discoveries being delayed in coming to light because they were ignored for one reason or another. But use of the term "buried" suggests plots and conspiracies. You must have data that supports the use of such terms. I would very much like to hear more, especially if you can cite specific papers. Such practices are contrary to science, and are enormously more difficult to carry out than the average cynic might imagine.
Please do not mistake my inquiry here as a challenge to your statements. I learned early in my education that I don't know what I don't know. So I would be very interested in learning what you know that supports what I took from your post. Thanks, Franz.
Robert

> This could give rise to a whole new gender of B movies. :)
>
> Anthony, why take the risk when in most cases your very own stem cells, once
> they have been regenerated, can cure you. Only for certain genetic diseases
> would you require donor stem cells. Scientists are working on using the same
> technology used to regenerate your stem cells to replace defective genes. So,
> in the not to distance future we won’t need donor stem cells.

True, you have to screen carefully not only for possibility of rejection but for genetic defects, especially in stem cell lines that have been around awhile. The holy grail will be to be able to substitute DNA from the patient, or better yet somehow trick existing patient cells into breeding undifferentiated ones, but that is evidently a LOOOONG way off.

> [Edit]
> >
> > The hope of turning these cures into reality already exists as explained
> in my
> > last post. This has already been in existance for the last 2 years but
> has
> > been buried and ignored by the medical establishment and drug companies.
> It
> > cuts into their lucrative research grants and profits from drug sales.
> For
> > example, the U.S. spends $100 billion a year on diabetes alone. Ouch!!!
> >
> > Franz
> >
> Hi Franz.
> I'd like to know more about the "buried and ignored" part. I'm not necessarily
> a member of the "medical establishment," but I'm reasonably well informed.
> Some research does not make it through to publication in peer-reviewed and
> referreed journals due to flaws in design and myriad other problems. And the
> history of science is replete with important insights and discoveries being
> delayed in coming to light because they were ignored for one reason or
> another. But use of the term "buried" suggests plots and conspiracies. You
> must have data that supports the use of such terms. I would very much like to
> hear more, especially if you can cite specific papers. Such practices are
> contrary to science, and are enormously more difficult to carry out than the
> average cynic might imagine.
> Please do not mistake my inquiry here as a challenge to your statements. I
> learned early in my education that I don't know what I don't know. So I would
> be very interested in learning what you know that supports what I took from
> your post. Thanks, Franz.
> Robert
>
Hi Robert:
For the past 4 months, I have been contacting members of the medical establishment and researchers on the subject of ASCs and the regeneration of their telomeres without rendering them immortal. I have been ignored, dismissed, accused of heresy and for believing in tall tales from snake oil vendors. Even after presenting them with the facts, they were more interested in their patents, stock portfolios, and their investments in retirement and nursing homes than the possible advancement of healthcare. After all this, I may have somewhat over stated the "buried and ignored" part of my post due to shear frustration.

The research I have mentioned has been published in the:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),
Journal of Bacteriology, and
Nucleic Acids Research.

Are you by any chance an Associate Professor with a Faculty of Medical Technology and who’s extension ends with 77. If so, let me know and I’ll send you an e-mail with the specifics on the research.

> > Robert
> >
> Hi Robert:
> For the past 4 months, I have been contacting members of the medical
> establishment and researchers on the subject of ASCs and the regeneration of
> their telomeres without rendering them immortal. I have been ignored,
> dismissed, accused of heresy and for believing in tall tales from snake oil
> vendors. Even after presenting them with the facts, they were more interested
> in their patents, stock portfolios, and their investments in retirement and
> nursing homes than the possible advancement of healthcare. After all this, I
> may have somewhat over stated the "buried and ignored" part of my post due to
> shear frustration.
>
> The research I have mentioned has been published in the:
> Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
> America (PNAS),
> Journal of Bacteriology, and
> Nucleic Acids Research.
>
> Are you by any chance an Associate Professor with a Faculty of Medical
> Technology and who’s extension ends with 77. If so, let me know and I’ll send
> you an e-mail with the specifics on the research.
>
> Franz
>
Hi Franz,
No, sorry. I'm just a private-practice doc. I've always been a bit too oppositional with authority figures to make any headway in the medical institutions' hierarchies. But if you have a moment, you could post the journal references or anything else pertinent in a new thread. Maybe title it @drbob, something like that. If I don't see such a post, I'll assume you didn't have time. In any event, this has been an interesting thread, eh?
Best wishes,
Robert

> Hi Franz,
> No, sorry. I'm just a private-practice doc. I've always been a bit too
> oppositional with authority figures to make any headway in the medical
> institutions' hierarchies. But if you have a moment, you could post the
> journal references or anything else pertinent in a new thread. Maybe title it
> @drbob, something like that. If I don't see such a post, I'll assume you
> didn't have time. In any event, this has been an interesting thread, eh?
> Best wishes,
> Robert
>
Hi Robert:
EH? Geez, I can’t remember the last time I used that expression. Must be because I haven’t lived in Quebec for the last 27 years. Boy, 99,788 credits in 94 days that is some serious computer power!!!

Back to the subject. I don’t think we need to setup a new thread at this point.

Over the last year, I have cut and pasted numerous articles and research papers on the subject into a word document along with their HTML address. Or, downloaded their PDFs. I have pasted the links to a few interesting articles below. Hopefully they don’t get butchered.

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/03120301.html

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/03120801.html

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/03122401.html

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/04011301.html

http://www.innovitaresearch.org/news/04052101.html

http://www.asaging.org/generations/gen-24-1/senescence.html

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/168/3/318

Aging and Cancer: Are Telomeres and Telomerase the Connection?
By Jerry W. Shay and Woodring E. Wright University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
(Can’t find the HTML link anymore. Look them up in Google. They have numerous publications on the subject.)

Eric has been generous enough to e-mail me the PDF for producing the DNA templates for research purposes only. Now I’m looking for a Biochemistry lab willing to produce a small quantity for a small research project. Up to now I haven’t had any success.

> > Hi Franz,
> > No, sorry. I'm just a private-practice doc. I've always been a bit too
> > oppositional with authority figures to make any headway in the medical
> > institutions' hierarchies. But if you have a moment, you could post the
> > journal references or anything else pertinent in a new thread. Maybe
> title it
> > @drbob, something like that. If I don't see such a post, I'll assume you
> > didn't have time. In any event, this has been an interesting thread, eh?
> > Best wishes,
> > Robert
> >
> Hi Robert:
> EH? Geez, I can’t remember the last time I used that expression.

Oh, I was just trying to communicate with you in your native language. :->

> Must be because I haven’t lived in Quebec for the last 27 years. Boy, 99,788 credits in 94 days that is some serious computer power!!!
>
It's all in the mitotic figures.
> Back to the subject. I don’t think we need to setup a new thread at this
> point.
> Over the last year, I have cut and pasted numerous articles and research
> papers on the subject into a word document along with their HTML address. Or,
> downloaded their PDFs. I have pasted the links to a few interesting articles
> below. Hopefully they don’t get butchered.
>
Got 'em. Thanks. Whew! Been doing your homework...
>
> Eric has been generous enough to e-mail me the PDF for producing the DNA
> templates for research purposes only. Now I’m looking for a Biochemistry lab
> willing to produce a small quantity for a small research project. Up to now I
> haven’t had any success.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
If I have enough background to respond intelligently, I will. Franz, thanks very much.
Oh, boy! More reading! :-D :-O